09 November 2016 3:55 PM

Thoughts on Mr Trump's new dawn. Adrift on a sinister current

Today , for the second time in five months, a left-wing elite paid the price of ignoring, for many years, the warnings of civilised and tolerant conservatives. I cannot tell you how frustrating it has been, when trying to debate politics with readers of the Guardian and the New York Times.

To suggest to them that mass immigration is risky and destabilising; to urge that the married family needs to be supported, not dissolved; to say that education needs more rigour, discipline and selection; to advocate the deterrent punishment of crime rather than its indulgence; to suggest that pornography and swearing may damage civility; to object to attempts to abolish national borders and sovereignty; to say that violent liberal intervention in foreign countries is dangerous and wrong… any or all of these things has earned me a patronising sneer, a lofty glance, a dismissal as if I am some sort of troglodyte who has got into the room by mistake.

I said (as I recorded here a few weeks ago) to such people that they should listen to me while they could. I was content if they would only listen to me and moderate their policies. I did not even seek to wrest power from them, if they would only moderate their dogmatic revolutionary drive. I believed (and still believe) that they had made a mistake even on their own terms, that they could not possibly want the consequences of what they were doing. In the end, this was the Weimar Republic and they were courting a grave risk that they would eventually drive people too far. The response was sometimes personal abused, sometimes total, frozen indifference, very, very occasionally a brief, fairly uncomprehending attempt to see my point which came to nothing.

Well, now we have what I warned of. I don’t like these deep and increasingly spiteful divisions. I don’t like the crumbling of old constitutional conventions and the increasing treatment of opponents as enemies. I fear where this might lead. I have no desire to fight my fellow countrymen.

But all I can say is that I told you so. I cannot see what I can actually do, except try not to make things worse. Actually, my willingness to listen sympathetically to some of the worries of the Remainers has met with total indifference too. I doubt if one in a thousand of them even knows that I disapprove of the Referendum and that I think they had a case at the High Court. Even now they are so self-righteous they cannot imagine any opponent giving them the consideration they would never give in return. People who think their own opinions make them virtuous have the most closed minds of all. But I’ll carry on trying.

Sick as I am of this behaviour, it has not sent me over the edge of rage and into unreason. I refused to be beguiled into supporting Donald Trump, a yahoo and braggart whose views possibly coincide with mine on two or three things. It seemed absurd to be expected to support Mr Trump because I also did not support Hillary Clinton, a woman lost in a sea of money and liberal delusions, who has somehow persuaded herself that war is good. The same process works backwards. Neither will do. I have said it before, but it bears saying again. I don’t buy goods I don’t want, just because the shop involved has nothing I do want.

Voting is not a duty in such circumstances. If only people had the sense to see it an d act accordingly, not voting is a much higher duty. If neither of these terrible candidates had achieved more than 15% of the vote, how could they claim any serious mandate for the things they want to do. Yet, without resistance, the two halves of America agreed on one thing, That it was better to vote for disaster than not to vote at all.

Disaster? Hillary’s war policy in Syria would certainly have been one. Mr Trump’s economic policy, such as it is, which we don’t really know, and his general lack of respect for the rule of law and the separation of powers, threaten a different sort of catastrophe. I cannot see this ending happily. His other promises may also prove hard to keep. Those old stories about wicked necromancers raising demons, and then not being able to send them back where they came from, seem to me to be metaphors for modern-day political alchemists who raise huge hopes which they know they cannot satisfy, so summoning into being crowds which can all too easily become mobs, and will not go home when asked. What then?

Catastrophes happen in real life. I have seen them in Russia and elsewhere. Jobs gone, homes gone, savings wiped out between supper and breakfast, shortages of everything from milk to electricity. People survive. But it’s not very nice. Just because your entire life hitherto has been lived in peace, stability and security, doesn’t mean this is guaranteed to last forever. It could be you, ten years’ hence, selling your worldly possessions at the roadside (as in the opening scenes of ‘The Third Man’) to stay alive.

Someone has cut the ropes, and we are adrift on a strange, sinister, powerful current towards an unknown destination which it might be better never to reach at all. The liberal democracies have exhausted their form of government, which is increasingly using democracy to reject liberalism, but in an angry and impatient way. This, no doubt, is due to the policies pursued by our existing rulers for 50 years. But I do not think that will make the experience any more comfortable. Anger and contempt for your opponents are poor foundations for civilised government.

There is little we can now do to change this fate. It would be like paddling with your hands to fight the force of the Gulf Stream. Maybe Mr Trump will turn out to have been kidding us. Maybe he will surround himself with advisers of brilliance and subtlety, who will prove to have mastered the problems of reintroducing protection in a world governed by open borders and increasingly dominated by China. Maybe all that stuff about jailing his opponent was just talk. Maybe, despite all those years of, er, locker-room behaviour Mr Trump will turn out after all to be a Christian gentleman in office upholding the ancient virtues. I do hope so. But forgive me if I decline to be optimistic.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Henry: "Mr Hitchens is trying to avoid debating on the matter. His manoeuvre to deflect attention from the topic does not convince anyone."

Just give him the dates, eh?

"The point is that many of the biggest national "newspapers" are stirring anti-immigrant sentiment with lies and misrepresentations of the facts."

If that is true, it's wrong. I just doubt that it's true. It's also not related to the point I was making, which I think was just about newspaper/media bias.

“What is "my side of politics"? I have expressed my opinions here, and disagreed with arguments I have read here, if I thought they were wrong. I call that "debating", not "bullying".

You might be debating, but I was speaking of your side of politics, which I might characterise as more neopagan (aka left wing politics) than the less neopagan side (aka right wing politics) which is what you might perhaps call right wing extremism, and which I would call wholly unsatisfactory for a conservative Christian, but better than the alternative. Your side of politics resorts constantly to bullying, which is why they lost. Lots of people are fed up. But keep going as you are. Hopefully the lessons won't be learned and your side will keep losing.

“This contributor may think the Democrats lost, or as an other contributor put it, "my side lost bigly".”

The Democrat Party lost the electoral college in what is known as a 'landslide', yes. That said, it is probable that the country is more or less split in half.

“Nonetheless it is my view that when right-wing populism wins, everybody loses. “

Why?

“And in particular the white working class who apparently voted for him in such large numbers. What will they do or think when they realise Trump will do nothing to improve their life?”

No idea, although conservatives are quite used to being let down by politicians. As it is, even if he's as big a disaster as you think he will be, I think everyone will be better off than if Hillary had won, although, tbh, I can't shake the feeling that he won't be inaugurated. This is based on nothing but my gut, and as such isn't worth anyone's time, but I thought I should be honest about it.

C.Morrison: “On some matters, only in the most feebly token of ways. Two instances of that are the mainstream press -- mass-media in general -- with its fervently sycophantic line re "NATO" ... and coverage of the war against Syria.”

Sure. Point taken. And it's not like any of the UK papers are conservative enough for my liking. It's just that I prefer bias to be openly acknowledged, and nobody is free of it.

Henry L'Eplattenier | 19 November 2016 at 05:04 PM :
*** The point is that many of the biggest national "newspapers" are stirring anti-immigrant sentiment with lies and misrepresentations of the facts. ***

No, they are not doing that. They are deliberately *making it appear* that they to some extent identify with an indigenous population who have been and are still being betrayed and attacked by the liberal establishment. Then when it best serves that establishment, these newspapers will do their utmost to undermine the resistance, or just plain change sides -- for many decades, such judas-goat publications have been carefully positioned to act as a monopolists' blocker against the rise of any alternative media.
Which doesn't necessarily mean that journalists are *individually* being deceptive -- their (limited) degree of dissent about establishment agendas is permitted as part of a larger media entity that *overall* is controlling, manipulative and deceptive.
Such journalists may be used as smokescreen or bait -- but could reasonably defend their position by arguing that if they didn't take the opportunity (even within such a false-flag setup) of dissenting, then dissent might not have any mass-media outlet for expression at all.
A historical example of the above was the disappearing of articles by Gordon Tether (anti CM) by the Financial Times (pro CM) during the lead up to the Common Market. referendum.

"Make no mistake, these migrants are like cockroaches. They might look a bit “Bob Geldof’s Ethiopia circa 1984”, but they are built to survive a nuclear bomb. They are survivors."

- "The same so-called "newspaper" published the headline "1 in 5 Brit Muslims have sympathy for Jihadis".

From a 'Survation' survey: ... based on asking the respondents if they agreed with a list of statements: “I have a lot of sympathy with young Muslims who leave the UK to join fighters in Syria” 5.3% agreed. “I have some sympathy” 14.5% agreed. “I have no sympathy” 71.4% agreed. “I don’t know” 8.8% agreed."

- "The Daily Mail falsely claimed 1 in 5 murderers is an immigrant."

Daily Mail 31 Aug 2009: "Up to a fifth of killers in England and Wales are foreign, police figures suggest. Out of 371 individuals accused or convicted of murder or manslaughter last year, 79 were from abroad - more than 21 per cent. Foreign immigrants make up only around a tenth of the UK population, meaning they are statistically twice as likely as native Britons to be charged with or found guilty of an illegal killing."

- "The Daily Express claimed workers were being "fired for being British"

Daily Express 14 Oct 2011 report re:

Henry Smith MP (Crawley)(Con), Hansard 13 Oct 2011 Vol 533:

"I have recently been dealing with a case on behalf of two constituents who were dismissed from their jobs with a commercial cleaning firm called Jani-King, allegedly for being British. May we have a debate on discrimination against British workers in this country?"

- "These are just a handful of examples. The list of scandalous lies and misrepresentations could go on and on. Does Mrs B need more examples to demonstrate how mistaken and misinformed she is? Does Mr Hitchens really doubt that such headlines were published? What planet does he live on? I would just like to remind him that the publication if such headlines in national "newspapers" in the past year or so has been associated with a dramatic increase in xenophobic and homophobic hate crime."

The graffiti on the Polish Centre was in Polish, apparently.

- "This is serious. People's lives are being affected by this rhetoric."

But more affected by the mass slaughter which has been perpetrated upon them.

- "Rather than absurdly blaming the current situation on "liberals" or "people like me"...

Unsurprisingly such "liberals" show no acknowledgement of any responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

Henry
Do you really think thatin my day to day life, I don't have converstions with family, friends and acquaintances?
People from all walks of life, who pass on experience of how things are changing and of what their work environment is like.
From tradesmen who have been undercut. To what it is like as whole workspace can only have a couple of locals, with the local not hearing own language.
A kind of gradual wearing down, that has created this feeling that the liberal elite are
distant and have no idea of what impact on individual lives this is all having.
We know that so called positive discrimination is there in the BBC with applications for jobs.
The police force, sorry service. I prefer business, does it too.Then, all women short
lists. Although I believe Jack Dromy, Labour somehow managed to by pass that.
I believe merit has to come first.
You talk of equality for women in terms of wages.
Away from the liberal ideal that tells us women what we want, life is different.
Many women would yearn to not be on the tread mill, whike babies are preschool.
They are grateful their generation of working class mums can have the children.
I've done my young childcare bit. My neighbours are at different stages.
Equality for liberal elite, isn't pandering to what they see as thegold fashiined idea of pre school families being self responsible.
My strong minded generation of women, won't fit into that ideal and care proving it up and down the country as we can see the stress, the unnecessary stress of leaving young.
Not that some families don't want nursery, but that the alternative view and tax relief is not there. It's not on the liberal agenda of we know best.
My neighbours grandchild, pops in with grandma, with the latest cake, ( lemon drizzle) and normal life goes on.

Henry
You still haven't told me if you have grown up daughters. You talk about equality but you seem to be a typical liberal and talk about your idea of equality.
My idea is that local girls should have the freedom to walk without harassment and their path barred, even with young child, made to step on the road.
You talk of young black youth......I too am concerned as a grandmother who is being made aware of the material being made by these teens, on the You tube, which is also sending a really bad message to all youngsters.
I am appalled by the portrayal and glorifying of drugs, alcohol and materialism and gang style culture.
I'm not hearing anyone's anger about this terrible influence of musical video on both black and white youngsters.
I was naive to this, but have been educated because, I take interest and have listened and watched the glorifying of dealing, using drugs, the awful language.
One has been made near an area I have spoken of. I know the street.
If parents knew of this, I'm sure, I hope, they would be horrified.
This culture is what is harming young black men and in turn many many young drawn into it.
I hope I am a mature and thoughtful person. I am frustrated that the real issues are being ignored.

LouiseYvette, if you consider that Infowars is a more reliable source of 'truth' than the 'liberal' mainstream media, then you have completely lost the plot. Alex Jones and his fellow conspiracy nuts spout the most crazy nonsense without any consideration of the available evidence or facts. Infowars run bizarre stories ranging from the Sandy Hook school massacre being a hoax to claiming that Michelle Obama is a man. If many of your fellow American citizens rely on Infowars for the 'truth' there really is no hope for its survival as a civilised nation. Better start buying more guns, you will be needing them!

***PH writes: The dates on which these accounts appeared would be useful for anyone seeking to check Mr L'Eplattenier's account. If anyone wished to so so.***

- Does Mr Hitchens really doubt that such headlines were published? What planet does he live on?

***PH writes. Did I say that? No, I didn't. I just asked for the dates, which he does not give. . If he has reliable information, he will have the dates. If he has just got this off some website, he possibly won't. I was always trained to check things, even things on websites, and even things Mr L'Eplattenier says. Why, I even check things the government says, rude as it is of me. Some of the headlines cited are not in themselves outrageous, unless they state an untruth. Perhaps they don't. I have the facilities to find the articles concerned and see. I should be interested to do so. ***

I would just like to remind him that the publication if such headlines in national "newspapers" in the past year or so has been associated with a dramatic increase in xenophobic and homophobic hate crime. This is serious. People's lives are being affected by this rhetoric. Rather than absurdly blaming the current situation on "liberals" or "people like me", Mr Hitchens should clearly condemn such blatant stirring of anti-immigrant sentiment, instead of sitting on the fence, cultivating an ambiguous position and thereby in effect condoning this rhetoric.

John writes: "Many of those keen on identity politics seem to think that holding the correct views on issues like homosexuality or refugees is enough to be a moral person, whatever honesty, temperance, and wisdom they show in the rest of their lives."

louiseyvette | 17 November 2016 at 06:54 PM :
*** The British papers are adversarial, as PH likes to note, so you tend to get at least two sides to a story there. ***

On some matters, only in the most feebly token of ways. Two instances of that are the mainstream press -- mass-media in general -- with its fervently sycophantic line re "NATO" ... and coverage of the war against Syria.
In the last week alone, those responsible for ITN news and reportage in the Guardian newspaper ought to have been arrested under the UK's anti-terrorism laws, for blatant dissemination of propaganda on behalf of the Al-Nusra and IS terrorist groups.
But where are these lies (and contradictions of their own previous assertions) denounced in the rest of a UK mass-media which generally acts as a disinformation conduit for the US State Department?
At national level, the DWP's ongoing attack on, and propaganda against, disabled people in the UK is hardly ever questioned in the mass-media (very few critical articles are swamped by an almost daily barrage of DWP press-releases being re-printed, usually without attribution of source, as news reports) -- nor is the fact that the welfare, work, health and pensions agenda of successive UK governments since the mid-1990s has mostly been devised by an on-contract US insurance multinational of exceedingly ill repute... despite the company itself having boasted of such influence.

- The Sun quoted Katie Hopkins calling refugees "cockroaches". The same so-called "newspaper" published the headline "1 in 5 Brit Muslims have sympathy for Jihadis".
The Daily Mail falsely claimed 1 in 5 murderers is an immigrant.
The Daily Express claimed workers were being "fired for being British" and that migrants were "robbing young Britons of jobs".
These are just a handful of examples. The list of scandalous lies and misrepresentations could go on and on. Does Mrs B need more examples to demonstrate how mistaken and misinformed she is?

***PH writes: The dates on which these accounts appeared would be useful for anyone seeking to check Mr L'Eplattenier's account. If anyone wished to so so.***

Louiseyvette writes: "As for "us and them" - spare us, please. There is nothing your side of politics loves to do more than to bully the rest of us. Give it a rest. This is why the Democrats lost the election, and a large part of why Leave won the referendum. Do you think the Democrats would be concerned about our thoughts and feelings (and liberty) if the situation were reversed? Bear in mind, too, that unlike you, I live under US law."

- What is "my side of politics"? I have expressed my opinions here, and disagreed with arguments I have read here, if I thought they were wrong. I call that "debating", not "bullying".
This contributor may think the Democrats lost, or as an other contributor put it, "my side lost bigly". In truth, things may not be so clear: 1) the Democrats had more votes than the Republicans, 2) there is reason to believe that Bernie Sanders may well have done better than Hillary Clinton and beaten Trump, since his project also promised to shake up the establishment, albeit in a different way from Trump. So it would be an exaggeration to say that Trump has a "clear mandate" even though we have to accept that he has won the election. I think the anti-Trump protests are silly.
Nonetheless it is my view that when right-wing populism wins, everybody loses. And in particular the white working class who apparently voted for him in such large numbers. What will they do or think when they realise Trump will do nothing to improve their life?

Those I know, including retired servicemen, police, nurses, those who have worked in ambulance and still do and one used to be a court usher, a couple who used to run a post office, a teacher, lots of married women and grandparents and carers of young had all made up their minds long ago.
To vote governments in and out and not be ruled by a band of unelected E.U. bureaucrats.
On immigration, it was an add on, becuase, it was observing changes and discussing them and of discussion of experiences.
Those of us in different towns, some rural, coming together, discussing changes and problems. Real life observations and also changes in jobs, then and now and impacts and petty bureaucracy and lack of good old fashioned common sense.
The newspapers just reflected reality.
The telly omitted so much of the true picture we see in real life.
My grandchildren are of this media age, but are wise enough to observe and also voted to leave.

Characterisations, mischaracterisations and sweeping generalisations are a noticeable feature of this argument, as has been noted previously:

Radio 4, several Fridays ago, was 'on a roll' with 'The World at One', 'Feedback', and 'Any Questions' featuring a preponderance of invited remainers, all of whom effused about the "lies" of the Leave campaign, without challenge. The supposed "lies" quoted were inaccurate mischaracterisations of uses from official sources, and so could in theory be rebutted. But all of which is beside the point. The fact is that the claims of "lies" were allowed to go out without challenge and unsubstantiated. Nobody was asked to justify *why* they were "lies."

In contrast, the mass slaughter which progressives brought upon the West 'is not the problem'.

I applaud you then. It is a rare thing. Many of those keen on identity politics seem to think that holding the correct views on issues like homosexuality or refugees is enough to be a moral person, whatever honesty, temperance, and wisdom they show in the rest of their lives.

Henry: "I have no sympathy for the media and certainly not the UK press, quite the contrary."

The British papers are adversarial, as PH likes to note, so you tend to get at least two sides to a story there.

That's not how it is in the US. If the US papers are going to pretend to be impartial, they need to do a much better job of it. You can hardly complain, Henry, that your views aren't represented in the press at all, when they are presented vocally in Britain and exclusively in the US.

"It may be so that the US media and I shared a preference for Trump not to be elected"

So what? This is no excuse for outright lies. It also shows that the media in the US favoured your side of politics, not mine (mine being not pro-Trump, but anti-Hillary). Your side of politics is a vicious totalitarian ideology, which goes by the misnomer of "liberal."

"I remain convinced that the national tabloid newspapers in the UK influenced the Brexit vote by stirring up anti-immigration sentiments"

Lots of people are quite rightly against mass immigration. It's very destructive to societies.

"The use of the term "social divide" indicates a simplistic view just like "liberal elite", "establishment", "liberals", etc, since all these terms can mean almost anything, yet emphasise the "us and them" rhetoric.""

Whatever the "nuances" and I somewhat agree that the situation is not totally simple, there is at least one major divide. The elites in the US are completely out of touch with at least half the voters in the election. Since only about that same number of people voted for Hillary, you could say they are out of touch with much more than half the population.

"In reality, the nuances are much more subtle."

We needn't be so subtle as to say nothing of substance. Ockham's razor and all that.

As for "us and them" - spare us, please. There is nothing your side of politics loves to do more than to bully the rest of us. Give it a rest. This is why the Democrats lost the election, and a large part of why Leave won the referendum. Do you think the Democrats would be concerned about our thoughts and feelings (and liberty) if the situation were reversed? Bear in mind, too, that unlike you, I live under US law.

The reason you all fear conservatives is because you believe we are as totalitarian as you are. This is not the case. Conservatives like gov't to stay out of people's business as much as possible.

Except that is not what I said or argued. What I said was that trying to divide society into some basic distinction between privileged and oppressed groups, all stuck in some perennial group or class-conflict, is pseudo-Marxist. Society and morality is far more complex than that. People can suffer and act wrongly and have or lack privilege in all sorts of ways. And people are not necessarily absorbed into some social category. People are, ultimately, moral within their personal lives, not so far as they are part of some social grouping or react to some trendy political or cultural cause, just as what is most important in life is our persona connections, not cultural Marxist categories and myths of class or social group conflict and oppression. I would advise you spend less time worrying about the privilege of others, and more on being a basically honest, moral, and cheerful person in your everyday life.

Okay, Bunker. But I was just pointing out that this wasn't what the campaign was about, so it is a little unfair to judge on this criteria. Trump wasn't campaigning to win the popular vote, and would have campaigned differently if he had been. Besides, if the popular vote is being used to say more voters preferred Hillary to Trump, I disagree that it shows that, as it is a first-past-the-post measure and there are enough conservative leaning third party and independence votes (something like 3-5 million, depending on how one divides up the Libertarian voters) to speculate that more voters preferred Trump. Of course, then there is the issue of non-voters.

The point i was making was that it is absurd to think that anyone but the privileged set the agenda. So the appeal to black/gay/woman ‘identity’ (which is the dominant discourse now) is per force one that comes from the privileged- by that i eman the ruling class. The only question is why. From the kindness of their hearts we can safely put to one side. The king used to appeal to ‘the people’ for example in his struggles with the nobility- and vice-versa. And it (that conflict) certainly helped the people too. Today, the ‘people’ are being passed over for a constituency within ‘the people’ (the ‘minorities’, which, taken together, are potentially more than half however) that is also supposedly the ‘victim’ of the old ‘people’ *and* old governing class. Now who is the ‘other’ within the governing class which necessitates this appeal? There isn’t one (as far as I can tell)- thus it IS rather similar to the old Soviet trope of ‘tsarist oppression’ and ‘reactionary forces’ that were ever to be torn down and that were ever ‘putting in’ respectively. That hypocrisy, however it appeared at the time, can be seen for what it was, today. It was to cajole and control- only.

louiseyvette writes: "Although, as it happens, the people with privilege are the ones who control the media. That would be your side of the social divide, not mine."

- I have no sympathy for the media and certainly not the UK press, quite the contrary. It may be so that the US media and I shared a preference for Trump not to be elected, but I remain convinced that the national tabloid newspapers in the UK influenced the Brexit vote by stirring up anti-immigration sentiments and publishing numerous lies, much like Trump did during his campaign in the US.
The use of the term "social divide" indicates a simplistic view just like "liberal elite", "establishment", "liberals", etc, since all these terms can mean almost anything, yet emphasise the "us and them" rhetoric. In reality, the nuances are much more subtle.

Henry L'Eplattenier | 16 November 2016 at 03:37 PM :
*** Those on the dominant side of the divide who want to suppress this discussion by calling it "claptrap" or by complaining about equality and diversity as if it were a disease are behaving like a politician dodging an embarrassing question. They clearly wish to remain "more equal than others". ***

Allegedly "dominant" .... the actuality is very different, including demands for so-called "positive discrimination" ("affirmative action" in the USA) other discriminatory laws and their enforcers who find nothing objectionable in use of the expression "kill all white men", but would go into rabid overdrive if anything other than 'white' was specified.
Have you already forgotten the liberal-bigots' overtly racist glee about Obama having been elected, or the blatant sexism of Hillary Clinton supporters?

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.